Part One: Introduction

I. Scope and Conflict of Laws: Nature, Definition and Importance

A. Diversity of Laws, Customs and Practices
Private International Law: part of municipal law which covers cases with a foreign element

HILTON V. GUYOT
FACTS: Defendants Hilton and Guyot were sued in France and the French Court rendered
judgment against them. Plaintiffs sued defendants on the French judgment in the US. The US
Court held the French judgment conclusive. Guyot, a Frenchman, sued Hilton, an American, in a
French court for the recovery of a sum of money. The French court rendered judgment in favor
of Guyot. Plaintiff brought the action to a US court to recover the sum of money adjudged by the
French court to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff.

ISSUE: Whether or not a judgment of a foreign nation’s court entitled to full credit and has a
conclusive effect when sued to other nation.

HELD: As a general rule, no law has any effect, of its own force, beyond the limits of the
sovereignty from which its authority is derived. Exception to this general rule is if there is comity
of nations.. The extent to which the law of one nation, as put in force within its territory, whether
by executive order, by legislative act, or by judicial decree shall be allowed to operate within the
dominion of another nation depends upon the comity of nations.

Comity of nations is the recognition which one nation allows within its territory to the
legislative, executive or judicial acts of another nation, having due regard both to international
duty and convenience and to the rights of its own citizens or of other persons who are under the
protection of its laws. Applying the standard & the comity of nations, a French Court would not
have recognized a foreign judgment without first having considered its merits. Based on the
notion of reciprocity derived from international comity, US Courts should similarly examine the
merits of any judgment prior to ruling on its enforcement. The Court’s opinion is notable for
drawing heavily from international sources specifically the laws and practices of over a dozen
nations all over the world regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. This
is one of the first cases to apply customary international law (the prevailing practices of States in
making its determination as to non US judgments)

Judgments rendered in France or in any other foreign country by the laws of which our own
judgments are reviewable by merits are not entitled to full faith and credit when sued upon
another nation but is a prima facie evidence only of the claim.

B. Definition
Private International Law: that part of the law of each state or nation which determines whether
in dealing with a legal situation the law of some other state or nation will be recognized, given
effect or applied.
 Public International Law Private International Law
Principally governs states in their Principally governs individuals in their private
relationships amongst themselves transactions which involves a foreign element
Sources of Law: Codified in Art 38 of the Derived from the internal law of each State
Statute of ICJ and not from any international law
extraneous to municipal law
Governs only States and internationally Governs individuals or corporations
recognized organizations
Involves State to State or government to Relates to private transactions between
government matters individuals
Violation (remedies): diplomatic protest, All remedies are provided by municipal laws of
peaceful means of settlement, adjudication by the State (resort to Courts or admin tribunals)
filing a case before international tribunals, use
force short of war or eventually go to war

C. Object, Function and Scope

Object & Function: to provide rational and valid rules or guidelines in deciding cases where the
parties, events or guidelines in deciding cases where the parties, events or transactions are
linked to more than one jurisdiction.

Conflict of Law rules aim to promote stability and uniformity of solutions

Scope: covers the entire range of laws (cuts across the subjects of jurisdiction of local courts or
tribunals, the law on evidence or proof of foreign law, the personal law of individuals and
juridical entities, naturalization law, laws on domicile and residence, family relations, contracts,
torts, crimes, corporation law and property law

Issues in Conflict of Laws:

1. Issue of adjudicatory JD: determines the circumstances that allow for a legal order to
impose upon its judiciary the task of deciding multi-state and multinational disputes

2. Issue of choice-of-law: refers to the probable sources from which the applicable law of
the controversy may be derived

3. Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments: study of situations which justify

recognition by the forum court of a judgment rendered by a foreign court or the
enforcement of such within the forum
Sources of Conflicts of Laws
A. Codes and Statutes
B. Treaties and International Conventions
C. Treatises, Commentaries and Studies of Learned Societies
D. Judicial Decisions

JURISDICTION AND CHOICE OF LAW

Jurisdiction: may mean either a. judicial jurisdiction or b. legislative jurisdiction

Judicial Jurisdiction: power or authority of a court to try a case, render judgment and execute
it in accordance with law

Legislative Jurisdiction: ability of the State to promulgate laws and enforce them on all
persons and property within its territory

4 Major Questions in Analyzing a Conflict of Laws Problem:

1. Has the court acquired jurisdiction over the defendant or over the property
2. Has the court acquired jurisdiction over the subject matter
3. Has the suit been brought in the proper venue in cases where a foreign element is
involved
4. Is there a statute or doctrine under which a court otherwise qualified to try the case
may or may not refuse to entertain it

Basis of Exercise of Judicial Jurisdiction

1. Jurisdiction over the person
2. Jurisdiction over the res
3. Jurisdiction over the subject matter

1. JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON

This is acquired by the voluntary appearance of a party and his submission to authority.

Over the person of the plaintiff: acquired from the moment he invokes the aid of the Court in
filing the suit

Over the person of the defendant: acquired when he enters his appearance or is served with the
legal process within the State

General Rule: When he or his lawyer appears in Court, he gives consent to the forum’s exercise
of jurisdiction over him
Exception: Where the appearance is for the purpose of protesting the jurisdiction over him
A non-resident plaintiff who files a suit is deemed to consent to the court’s exercise of
jurisdiction over subsequent proceedings arising out of his original cause of action

Jurisdiction over the defendant may be had by: personal or substituted service of summons (Rule
14 of Revised Rules of Court)

GEMPERLE V.SCHENKER
FACTS: Paul Schenker acting through his wife Helen Schenker filed a complaint against petitioner
for the enforcement of Paul Schenker’s allegedly initial subscription to the shares of stock of the
Phil. Swiss Trading Company and the exercise of his alleged preemptive rights to the unissued
original capital stock of said corporation. Believing that the suit was only for the purpose of
harassing and degrading his reputation, he also filed a damage suit against the Schenkers. The
trial court rendered in favor of Gemperle thus Helen Schenker appealed alleging that Paul
Schenker cannot be sued or joined as defendants because the trial court never acquired
jurisdiction over his person because he was outside of the Phil. thus he is beyond the jurisdiction
of our court.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court can acquire jurisdiction over the person of an alien defendant?

HELD: Yes, where a Swiss citizen, residing abroad was served with summons through his wife
who was residing in the Phil. and who was his representative and attorney-in-fact in a prior
civil case which was filed at her behest in her aforementioned capacity, the trial court acquired
jurisdiction over his person by means of service of summons to his wife. As a the wife had
authority to sue in his behalf, so she was also empowered to represent him in suits filed against
him, particularly in a case which is a consequence of the action brought by her in his behalf.

: Jurisdiction was acquired by the lower court over the person of Paul through service of
summons addressed to him upon Helen, it appearing from the answer that she is the
representative and attorney in fact of her husband in the civil case

JURISDICTION:
1. Over the person
a. Voluntary appearance
b. Submission to authority

General Rule: In substituted service, the premise is that the defendant is within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court
Exception: Gemperle case: Helen is legally authorized to file a case in behalf of Paul. She is also
authorized to receive summons
 2. Over the property
a. In rem – the situs could bind the world and not just the interest of specific persons
Ex. Forfeiture of tangible property and registration of land title
b. Quasi in rem – based on the State’s physical power over property found within its
territory. Affects only interests of particular persons in that thing.
Ex. Proceeding to quiet title

 In proceedings in rem & quasi in rem: Due process requirement be that the
defendant be given adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. Both are made
in service of summons by publication

3. Over the subject matter: Whether or not the Court has competence to hear the case
and render judgment, the court’s jurisdiction must be properly invoked (provided for by
Statute)

2. JURISDICTION OVER THE PROPERTY

Jurisdiction over the property results from:

a. Seizure of the property under legal process
b. The institution of legal proceedings wherein the court’s power over the property is
recognized and made effective

This kind of jurisdiction is referred to as in rem. In rem jurisdiction: the situs could bind the
world and not just the interest of specific persons

Quasi in rem jurisdiction: affect only the interests of particular persons in that thing
Ex: Quieting of title

In these proceedings, all the due process requires is that the defendant be given adequate
notice and opportunity to be heard (met by service of summons by publication)

PENNOYER v. NEFF
FACTS: Mitchell brought suit against Neff to recover unpaid legal fees. Mitchell published notice
of the lawsuit in an Oregon newspaper but did not serve Neff personally. Neff failed to appear
and a default judgment was entered against him. To satisfy the judgment Mitchell seized land
owned by Neff so that it could be sold at a Sheriff‘s auction. When the auction was held
Mitchell purchased it and later assigned it to Pennoyer. Neff sued Pennoyer in federal district
court in Oregon to recover possession of the property, claiming that the original judgment
against him was invalid for lack of personal jurisdiction over both him and the land. The court
found that the judgment in the lawsuit between Mitchell and Pennoyer was invalid and that
Neff still owned the land. Pennoyer lost on appeal and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
ISSUE: Can a state court exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident who has not been
personally served while within the state and whose property within the state was not attached
before the onset of litigation? NO

HELD: A court may enter a judgment against a non-resident only if the party: 1) is personally
served with process while within the state, or 2) has property within the state, and that
property is attached before litigation begins (i.e. quasi in rem jurisdiction). To give legal
proceedings any validity, there must be a tribunal with legal authority to pass judgment, and a
defendant must be brought within its jurisdiction by service of process within the state, or by
his voluntary appearance. The substituted service of process by publication in actions brought
against non-residents is valid only where property in the state is brought under the control of
the court, and subjected to its disposition by process adapted to that purpose, or where the
judgment is sought as a means of reaching such property or affecting some interest therein;
in other words, where the action is in the nature of a proceeding in rem. But where the entire
object of the action is to determine the personal rights and obligations of defendants that is
where the suit is merely in personam, constructive service in this form upon a non-resident is
ineffectual for that purpose.

The Oregon court did not have personal jurisdiction over Neff because he was not served in
Oregon. The court‘s judgment would have been valid if Mitchell had attached Neff‘s land at the
beginning of the suit. Mitchell could not have done this because Neff did not own the land at
the time Mitchell initiated the suit. The default judgment was declared invalid. Therefore, the
sheriff had no power to auction the real estate and title never passed to Mitchell. Neff was the
legal owner.

INTERNATIONAL SHOE v. STATE OF WASHINGTON

FACTS: The State of Washington sued International Shoe Co. which is a Delaware corporation
with principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. The corporation is engaged in the
manufacture and sale of shoes and other footwear. During the years from 1937 to 1940,
appellant employed eleven to thirteen salesmen whose primary tasks were to exhibit samples
of merchandise and solicit orders from prospective buyers. These salesmen resided in
Washington. In the course of business, they rented permanent sample rooms, in business
buildings or temporary ones in hotels for exhibiting samples. It sued International Shoe to
collect the tax laid upon the exercise of the privilege of employing salesmen within the State.
International Shoe defense alleged that it was not a corporation of the State of Washington,
and its activities within the State of exhibiting samples and soliciting orders were not sufficient
to manifest is presence there hence the state courts had no jurisdiction over it.

ISSUE: Whether State of Washington has jurisdiction over International Shoe

HELD: Historically, the jurisdiction of courts to render judgment in personam is grounded on
their de facto power over the defendant's person. Hence, his presence within the territorial
jurisdiction of a court was prerequisite to its rendition of a judgment personally binding him.
But now due process requires only that, in order to subject a defendant to a judgment in
personam, if he be not present within the territory of the forum, he should have certain
minimum contacts with it such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend "traditional
notions of fair play and substantial justice." The activities carried on in behalf of appellant in
the State of Washington were neither irregular nor casual. They were systematic and
continuous throughout the years in question. They resulted in a large volume of interstate
business, in the course of which appellant received the benefits and protection of the laws of
the state, including the right to resort to the courts for the enforcement of its rights. The
obligation which is here sued upon arose out of those very activities. It is evident that these
operations establish sufficient contacts or ties with the state of the forum to make it
reasonable and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial
justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which appellant has incurred there.

Hence, we cannot say that the maintenance of the present suit in the State of Washington
involves an unreasonable or undue procedure. The demands of due process regarding the
corporation’s presence may be met by such contacts of the corporation with the state of the
forum as to make it reasonable to require the corporation to defend the particular suit which is
brought there. Its presence can be manifested only by such activities carried on in its behalf by
those who are authorized to act for it.

MULLANE V. CENTRAL HANOVER BANK & TRUST

FACTS: The Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. ("the bank"), which is based in New York, pooled
together 113 small trusts into one large common trust fund pursuant to Section 100-c of
the New York State Banking Law. It thereafter filed a Petition before a New York court to settle
its first account in connection with the common trust fund. Under Section 100-c of the New
York State Banking Law, the only notice required to be given to the beneficiaries of the trusts
making up the common trust fund was a publication in a local newspaper. Kenneth Mullane
("Mullane"), who was appointed as a special guardian and attorney for those parties known or
unknown who had any interest in the income of the fund, objected to the adequacy of the
publication in affording the defendants due process.

ISSUE: Whether or not publication is sufficient notice.

HELD: Notice by publication is not adequate notice in the present case. The means used in the
service of notice must be reasonably certain to actually inform the affected parties. The
means used in the service of notice must be reasonably certain to inform those who are
affected .If such means are not possible, then the alternate means adopted must not be
substantially less likely to inform the concerned parties. But when notice is a person’s due,
process which is a mere gesture is not due process. The means employed must be one desirous
of actually informing the absentee might reasonably adapt to accomplish it, The reasonableness
and hence the constitutional validity of any chosen method may be defended on the ground
that it is in itself reasonably certain to inform those affected or when conditions do not
reasonably permit such notice, the form chosen should not substantially be less likely to bring
home notice than other feasible and customary substitutes.

A large number of cases brought before the court on the issue of notice involves those served by
publication. In any, case, the bank has a record of the names and addresses of the income
beneficiaries. It has not been shown that the bank has made any serious effort to inform the said
beneficiaries personally of the settlement proceedings through the said addresses. Hence the
notice of judicial settlements of accounts required by the New York Banking Law is incompatible
with the requirements of the 14th Amendment as a basis for adjudication depriving known
persons whose whereabouts are also know of substantial property rights.

SHAFFER v. HEITNER
FACTS: Heitner, a nonresident of Delaware, is the owner of one share of stock in the Greyhound
Corp., a business incorporated under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in
Phoenix, Ariz. Heitner filed a suit in the Court of Chancery naming as defendants Greyhound, its
subsidiary Greyhound Lines, Inc., and 28 present and former officers both of the corporations
alleging in essence that the individual defendants had violated their duties which resulted in the
corporations being held liable for damages in a private antitrust suit and a large fine in a criminal
contempt action. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, Heitner filed a motion for an
order of sequestration of the Delaware property of the individual defendants.

The request for the sequestration order was approved and pursuant to that order, the
sequestrator "seized" approximately 82,000 shares of Greyhound common stock belonging to
the defendants. (Delaware was the situs of ownership of all stock in Delaware corporations.) The
21 defendants whose property was seized assailed the sequestration order contending that the
ex parte sequestration procedure did not accord them due process of law and that the property
seized was not capable of attachment in Delaware. The stocks while not physically present in
Delaware are considered to be there in view of it being the place of incorporation.

ISSUE: Whether the Delaware court has jurisdiction

HELD: Delaware Court has no jurisdiction just because the stocks are statutorily present in
Delaware. The property stocks is not the subject matter of the litigation nor is it the underlying
cause of action related to the property. Also the facts does not demonstrate that the defendants
have purposefully availed of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state in a way
that would justify bringing them before a Delaware court.
In the case, the minimum contacts and fundamental fairness test should be satisfied regardless
of whether the proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem or in personam.

In order to justify an exercise of jurisdiction in rem, the basis for jurisdiction must be sufficient
to justify exercising "jurisdiction over the interests of persons in the thing." The presence of
property in a State may bear upon the existence of jurisdiction by providing contacts among
the forum State, the defendant, and the litigation, as for example, when claims to the property
itself are the source of the underlying controversy between the plaintiff and defendant, where it
would be unusual for the State where the property is located not to have jurisdiction.

But where, as in the instant quasi in rem action, the property now serving as the basis for state-
court jurisdiction is completely unrelated to the plaintiff's cause of action, the presence of the
property alone, i. e., absent other ties among the defendant, the State, and the litigation, would
not support the State's jurisdiction.

Though the primary rationale for treating the presence of property alone as a basis for jurisdiction
is to prevent a wrongdoer from avoiding payment of his obligations by removal of his assets to a
place where he is not subject to an in personam suit, that is an insufficient justification for
recognizing jurisdiction without regard to whether the property is in the State for that purpose.

 Traditional basis in exercising judicial jurisdiction: is the state’s physical power over the
persons and property within its territory. In in rem proceedings, it can exercise
jurisdiction over property situated in the state regardless of whether it could otherwise
exercise jurisdiction over the persons whose interest would be affected by the decision.

 In the US, there is a shifting trend from territorial power to considerations of minimum
contacts and fundamental fairness. Such demands that there be forum transaction
contacts that will make it fundamentally fair to require defendant to defend a suit in the
forum regardless of his non-resident status. Where an individual or corporation is doing
business in the State, then it may be sued in the forum even on a claim not arising from
its business activities. A corporation is deemed to have consented to service and suit as
implied by its presence in the State through acts of authorized agents.

 In Mullane: Emphasized the importance of and set standard for adequate notice. The
manner notice was given should reasonably result in informing the affected partner and
when conditions do not reasonably permit such notice, the form chosen should not
substantially be less likely to bring home notice than other feasible and customary
substitutes. Only when defendant is adequately notified is he given the opportunity to
defend himself and the due process met

 Shaffer: Minimum contacts and fundamental fairness test should be satisfied regardless
of whether proceedings are in rem, quasi in rem or in personam.
  International Shoe requires minimum contacts between the defendant and the forum

 Shaffer demands that minimum contacts exist among the forum, defendant and the
cause of action

 Change in the conceptual foundation of jurisdiction from power to fairness does not
affect proceedings in rem which are suits where the property itself is the subject.

 Long Arm Statutes: Specify the kinds of contacts upon which jurisdiction will be asserted.
Such long arm statutes broadly authorize courts to assert jurisdiction in any case not
consistent with the constitution leaving it to the Court to define its limitations on a case
by case basis.

3. JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT MATTER

The subject matter jurisdiction is allocated among the Courts by constitutional and statutory
laws, according to the nature of the controversy, thereby determining the competence of the
court to try and decide a case. It is not enough that a court has a power in abstract to try and
decide the case as it is necessary that said power be properly invoked by filing a petition. Subject
matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by mere consent of the parties.

Idonah Perkins v. Roxas

FACTS: Eugene Perkins filed a case against BCMC with CFI-Manila for recovery of payment from
dividends payable in shares of stock in Eugene’s name, which BCMC withheld. BCMC claimed that
it withheld payment because of adverse claims of an Idonah Perkins and a George Engelhard.
Eugene included the two in a modified complaint; Idonah filed her answer with cross complaint
alleging that she was already declared sole legal owner of the BCMC shares of stock in question
by a judgment from the SC of the State of NY. She alleged that the said judgment is res judicata;
thus CFI-Manila has no jurisdiction.

ISSUE: Whether or not CFI has jurisdiction over the subject matter

HELD: CFI has jurisdiction over the case despite the presence of the NY judgment. Jurisdiction
over the subject matter: the nature of the cause of action and of the relief sought, conferred
by the sovereign authority which organizes the court, and is to be sought for in general nature
of its powers, or in authority specially conferred. In the present case, the amended complaint
filed by Eugene Perkins alleged the ownership in himself and calls for the adjudication of title to
certain shares of stock of the BCMB and the granting of affirmative reliefs, which fall within the
general jurisdiction of the CFI-Manila.
Idonah Perkins, in her cross complaint, brought suit against Eugene Perkins and BCMC upon the
alleged judgment of the SC of the State of New York and asked the court below to render
judgment enforcing that New York judgment, and to issue execution thereon. Such is a form of
action recognized by Sec. 309 of the Code of Civil Procedure (now Sec. 47, Rule 39, Rules of
Court) and which falls within the general jurisdiction of the CFI- Manila, to adjudicate, settle
and determine.

Whether or not the respondent judge in the course of the proceedings will give validity and
efficacy to the New York judgment set up by the Idonah in her cross-complaint is a question
that goes to the merits of the controversy and relates to the rights of the parties as between
each other, and not to the jurisdiction or power of the court. The fear that the trial judge may
render judgment annulling the final judgment of the NY Court is not a ground to deny the lower
court of jurisdiction. The test of jurisdiction is whether or not the tribunal has power to enter
upon the inquiry, not whether its conclusion in the course of its inquiry, is right or wrong.

BELEN V. CHAVEZ
FACTS: Respondent Sps. Silvestre and Patricia Pacleb filed an action before the RTC of Rosario,
Batangas against petitioners, Sps. Belen for the enforcement of a foreign judgment rendered by
Judge Green of the superior court of the State of California, in a complaint for breach of contract
against herein petitioners ordering them to pay private respondents monetary award. The
summons was served on petitioner’s address in San Gregorio, Alaminos, Laguna received by a
certain Marcelo Belen as alleged in the complaint. Atty. Alcantara, whose services were retained
by the petitioner’s relatives, entered his appearance for the petitioners, filed an answer stating
among others that petitioners are actually residents of California, USA. Atty. Alcantara on a later
date moved to dismiss the complaint due to the judgment of dismissal rendered by the same
foreign court which was denied for failure to present a copy thereof. Subsequently, the RTC
ordered a judgment in favor of the respondents which judgment was not received by Atty.
Alcantara due to his death but by a certain Leopoldo Avecilla. Thereafter, Att. Carmelo Culvera,
petitioner’s new counsel assailed the judgment before the CA for lack of jurisdiction over the
petitioners in view of the improper service of summons. The CA affirmed the said decision.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC acquired jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner.

HELD: Yes. Even if the service of summons was defective upon non- resident defendants, the
appearance of Atty. Alcantara impliedly authorized by the defendants to appear on their behalf
and his filing of numerous pleadings were sufficient to vest jurisdiction over the persons of the
defendants.